- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 28 2013,17:20) Hi T8, Gematria doesn't teach anything; but “Theomatics”, however,
confirms the supernatural aspect of the God of the bible.No need for you to complain about me commenting
on something YOU brought up. Now back to the topic.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
I did make a valid point Ed J.Is it not better to study the Word in every way possible than ramble on about number patterns that can be swayed to say what you want?
What I am proposing means you are the student and learn , while what you do by criticizing our method is negate study all the while teaching Theomatics which can be made to confirm whatever you want.
So if you are going to criticize our methods then I am allowed to at least defend your criticism, while also pointing out the weakness in your method.
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 28 2013,17:24) Hi T8, You mean like doing an internet search to find those who agree with your premise.
You might be better served by listening carefully why others disagree with you.
Yes it also includes Internet searches for valid reasons that others may have in supporting what we believe. It is called learning from others.And as far as opposing views go, I study them also. I only criticize them when they don't hold up to what scripture says.
And that is fair enough too.
I use to be a Trinitarian but changed when I understood scripture more deeply. So I am able to change my mind when truth is presented to me.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 28 2013,15:27) So I am able to change my mind when truth is presented to me.
Sometimes it takes time though; huh?Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 28 2013,10:31) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 28 2013,15:27) So I am able to change my mind when truth is presented to me.
Sometimes it takes time though; huh?
EdjI hope one day you get there
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 27 2013,17:00) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2013,05:26) Jesus is not an attribute of God, Jesus has the fullness of God in Him.
Are you talking to yourself here.
I believe Jesus is a being, not part of God as you do.He was begotten by God and even Jesus said, “if God was your Father, you would believe that I came from God”.
First you do not believe that God is your Father. You believe that he is two persons melded together. Secondly, you do not believe he came from God because you believe he is God.
Double fail.
God the Father, sent God the Son. Two persons in unity, not melded together.No fail here, just rocky soil that heard this before but the wind blew it away.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 26 2013,01:54) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 26 2013,20:47) I never said that Jesus was God the Father too.
You are saying that Jesus is the Only true God too and that he sent Jesus because we both know that the only true God sent Jesus. Two problems here.1) The only true God is the Father, so you are wrong.
2) The only true God sent Jesus. Jesus did not send Jesus because he is not the only true God.A normal person when confronted with this says that the only true God and Jesus are two different persons/entities.
A brainwashed or deceived person could overlook this if they were brainwashed or deceived enough. Congrats, you are such a person.
I said Jesus is also true God but not only true God because He is also man, the Father is only true God, not man also.The only true God the Father and the only true God and Man, Jesus Christ are two different entities. They are both true God, one is not only true God because He is also man.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 27 2013,02:05) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2013,20:04) t8
A tree comes into being from a seed, that doesn't mean it's coming into being was a beginning of existence. It just means that it came into being in a different state. It went from within a seed to be apart from the seed. It existed within the seed before it came forth from the seed.Going from a closed seed, to a sprouted plant took work. The bringing forth was 'work' but that doesn't mean that it was a work of creating something that did not exist in it's early stages.
Kathi, and attribute doesn't exist on it's own accord.
When it is brought forth, it can, and it doesn't divest God of that attribute. It is like a flame that produces another flame. The original flame is not lessened because of it.“For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.”
“Jesus said to them, 'If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me'.”
Notice that the words of Jesus whom you claim to stick up for is completely contradictory to the Jesus you preach.
Conclusion: You teach another Jesus. When will you stop fighting him by denying his words and raising your own words above his?
t8,
you saidQuote Kathi, and attribute doesn't exist on it's own accord.
When it is brought forth, it can, and it doesn't divest God of that attribute. It is like a flame that produces another flame. The original flame is not lessened because of it.That is good that you realize an attribute doesn't exist on its own accord.
Also, God did not exist before His attributes.
You understand that the 'word' and 'wisdom' were eternal but you deny that the Son who is the word and wisdom of God is eternal.You think that the Son as the word and wisdom of God was attributes of God before He became a person before creation. However, the Son did not have the nature of attributes (impersonal) He had the nature of God and the fullness of God dwelt within Him. He was a Son before and after He was begotten…a person, not just attributes, but a person with the very attributes of God.
Quote I have not come on my own; God sent me'.” From the roots of Jesse came the Branch. The Branch is talking there. The Branch (the Son in the flesh) did not come on His own.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 27 2013,17:04) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2013,05:26) The Roots sent the Shoot and yet the Shoot is the continuation of one of the Roots, therefore one of the Roots and the Shoot are the same person as Jesus says that He is the Root and Offspring of David. The first Root sent the second Root to continue it's life in a Shoot and as a Shoot as well as remaining the Root of itself, out of a nearly dried up stump. Amazing, isn't it.
Quadruple fail.Jesus is the firstborn of creation. He is the beginning of the creation of God.
Thus he is the root of all THINGS, and he is the offspring too because he emptied himself, and became a man for our sake.
If God created all things through him, then he would be the root. And we are taught that the head of the woman is the man, the head of the man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God. So Christ is the root of both the man and the woman in that sense.
Jesus is one of the roots. The Roots of Jesse are plural. In Isa 11:10 the Root that stands as a banner is singular.You are right to infer that Jesus is the Root of Jesse because all things were made through Him.
Quote He is the beginning of the creation of God. But not in the way you think. He is the beginning and the end, the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last.
Do a word study of the Greek word that is used for beginning there and see how many times it is applied to Jesus in Revelations. It never indicates a first creation. How could He be the first creation and last creation? Also, Jesus is the firstborn not first created. There is a difference. If He was created, He did not exist before He was created. He is the firstborn and those who are born have to exist before they are born. This isn't hard.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 27 2013,18:31) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2013,12:04) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 26 2013,23:38) Also notice the words “But He came into being”. What does that tell you?
t8
A tree comes into being from a seed, that doesn't mean it's coming into being was a beginning of existence. It just means that it came into being in a different state. It went from within a seed to be apart from the seed. It existed within the seed before it came forth from the seed.Going from a closed seed, to a sprouted plant took work. The bringing forth was 'work' but that doesn't mean that it was a work of creating something that did not exist in it's early stages.
LU,A tree becomes life as a seed.
That is right Kerwin. The tree is already alive in the seed.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 27 2013,21:28) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2013,23:06) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Because the scriptures I know about speak of Jesus having origins “from days of old”, and being the “firstborn of every creature”, and being “the beginning of the creation by God”, etc. And you do not understand ANY of those things accurately, imo.
Kathi,I just follow the rule YOU taught me a long time ago: Always assume the default meaning UNLESS there is clear evidence to the contrary.
The only “evidence to the contrary” that I've been shown on these scriptures is your DESIRE to have Jesus exist from eternity.
And since I haven't seen any SCRIPTURAL reason to think Jesus did exist from eternity, there is no SCRIPTURAL reason for me not to accept those scriptures to which I referred with the default understanding of the words written therein.
Nor have I ever been shown any SCRIPTURAL reason to understand the words “father” and “son” differently in the case of Jehovah and Jesus than I would understand those same words about anyone else.
Jesus is the eternal life that was with the Father in the beginning. 1 John 1. Jesus was without beginning of days. Hebrews 7.He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 27 2013,21:45) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 27 2013,01:13) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2013,20:14) I believe the Tatian quote is showing how the Father did not become less when He begat from Himself another person, like how one flame can start another flame without becoming less than it was before. It is the idea of being fruitful by multiplying, not fruitful by dividing and becoming less.
Well of course that is what you saw because you are blind to anything that competes with your teaching and you were able to manipulate this particular point into your teaching.
That's the first thing I thought too, t8. You've done a fine job of logically and scripturally correcting Kathi's flawed understandings in these last few posts.As for you, Kathi, are you able to see what you did? Can you see that you completely ignored the PLANK of the Tatian writing (including the entire CONTEXT of it), and instead went immediately searching for SPECKS that you could twist your way?
Look again at the writing, and then look at how you summarized that writing. And then look at both again. And again. And a few more times.
Let me know if you are able to see what you did, and how you did it.
Mike,
I addressed the rest of it after it was specified. i didn't ignore it for some trick. I just spoke about what I thought was his main point. I don't have time to always address everything, although, i think I did address t8's points after the second post about it. If I missed anything, ask. Don't assume I am intentionally not addressing something, ok? You don't address every point of everything that is said, either. It takes quite a bit of time to do so. Just ask me specifically if I missed something you want addressed.Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2013,23:19) Jesus was without beginning of days. Hebrews 7. He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.
So you believe Jesus actually IS Melchizadek?Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2013,23:24) ………i didn't ignore it for some trick. I just spoke about what I thought was his main point. I don't have time to always address everything………….
And by His simple will the Word sprang forth………became the firstbegotten work of the Father………….
[the Word] we know to be the Beginning of the world (cf. Rev. 3:14)………
But He came into being……….
so the Word, coming forth from the Word-Power of the Father, has not divested of the Word-Power Him who begat Him.
My point was not that the words of Tatian are any more “scripture” than say, the words of Athanasius. Instead, I was pointing out (along with t8) how your eyes so easily glossed over the important points I've reposted above, and focused only on the last part, which is, like you say, explaining how the begetting of the Word did not lessen the “Word-Power” of Him who begat the Word.
This is also how you focus on the scriptures, Kathi. You ignore these following PLANKS…………..
Jesus was begotten BY God. (Psalm 2:7, John 3:16)
Jesus is a creation OF God. (Col 1:15, Rev 3:14)
Jesus is the Son OF God. (Matt 16:16)
Jesus is the Word/Spokesman OF God. (John 1:1, Rev 19:13)
Jesus is the Messiah/Christ/Anointed One OF God. (Luke 2:11, Acts 2:36)
Jesus is the sacrificial Lamb OF God. (John 1:29, Rev 7:10)
Jesus is the Holy one OF God. (Mark 1:24, John 6:69)
Jesus is a prophet OF God. (Luke 4:24, Acts 3:22)
Jesus is an angel/messenger OF God. (John 8:28, 12:49, Galatians 4:14, Revelation 22:16)
Jesus is the mediator BETWEEN God and men. (1 Tim 2:5)
Jesus is a Priest OF God. (Heb 5:10)
Jesus is a Servant OF God. (Acts 4:30)
Jesus OBEYS God. (John 8:29, 12:49)
Jesus WORSHIPS God. (John 4:22)
Jesus says his God is greater than him, and all. (John 14:28, 10:29)
Jesus says that our God is also his own God. (John 20:17, Rev 3:12)
Jesus distinguishes himself as someone OTHER THAN his God. (John 10:36, 17:3)
Jesus was sent BY God. (Gal 4:4)
Jesus sits at the right hand OF God. (Mark 16:19, Acts 2:33)
Jesus rules in the power, authority, and name OF God. (Micah 5:4, Matt 28:18)
Jesus will hand the reign of the Kingdom back to his own God. (1 Cor 15:24, 28)………. and instead search tirelessly for little SPECKS that can be misconstrued to fit around the doctrine you've already made up in your mind.
In this “Tatian” case, you completely ignored that the Word “sprang forth”, and was the “firstbegotten WORK of the Father”. You ignored that he was “the beginning of the world (ie: things that were created)”, and that he “came into being”.
See how you glossed over all of these scripturally supported things in order to focus ONLY on the part of the quote with which you could agree?
Perhaps if you are able to realize that you do this also with scripture, you might be able to slowly correct this comprehension flaw you have.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 29 2013,11:16) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 27 2013,18:31) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2013,12:04) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 26 2013,23:38) Also notice the words “But He came into being”. What does that tell you?
t8
A tree comes into being from a seed, that doesn't mean it's coming into being was a beginning of existence. It just means that it came into being in a different state. It went from within a seed to be apart from the seed. It existed within the seed before it came forth from the seed.Going from a closed seed, to a sprouted plant took work. The bringing forth was 'work' but that doesn't mean that it was a work of creating something that did not exist in it's early stages.
LU,A tree becomes life as a seed.
That is right Kerwin. The tree is already alive in the seed.
Kathisorry you wrong again THE SEED AS TO DIED FIRST TO BRING NEW LIVE
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2013,20:04) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 26 2013,23:38) Also notice the words “But He came into being”. What does that tell you?
t8
A tree comes into being from a seed, that doesn't mean it's coming into being was a beginning of existence. It just means that it came into being in a different state. It went from within a seed to be apart from the seed. It existed within the seed before it came forth from the seed.Going from a closed seed, to a sprouted plant took work. The bringing forth was 'work' but that doesn't mean that it was a work of creating something that did not exist in it's early stages.
A perfect description for an attribute then coming forth as it's own being.Take a tree laden with seeds. Do those seeds exists as a life unto its own. Or are they merely the potential to become a life of its own? They are part of the tree and begin their own existence when certain things take place that allow the potential to become actual.
Or take the seed of a human. Does that seed exist and then come forth when it changes form as another human or is it potential with certain things needing to happen to become actual.
If you argue that a seed is the actual, then you have to argue that we all existed within our dad, rather than the understanding that most have that we exist within our mother once the life has been formed.
I think your argument here is not helping your case but is agreeing with what we are saying.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 01 2013,09:38) Jesus was begotten BY God. (Psalm 2:7, John 3:16)
Jesus is a creation OF God. (Col 1:15, Rev 3:14)
Jesus is the Son OF God. (Matt 16:16)
Jesus is the Word/Spokesman OF God. (John 1:1, Rev 19:13)
Jesus is the Messiah/Christ/Anointed One OF God. (Luke 2:11, Acts 2:36)
Jesus is the sacrificial Lamb OF God. (John 1:29, Rev 7:10)
Jesus is the Holy one OF God. (Mark 1:24, John 6:69)
Jesus is a prophet OF God. (Luke 4:24, Acts 3:22)
Jesus is an angel/messenger OF God. (John 8:28, 12:49, Galatians 4:14, Revelation 22:16)
Jesus is the mediator BETWEEN God and men. (1 Tim 2:5)
Jesus is a Priest OF God. (Heb 5:10)
Jesus is a Servant OF God. (Acts 4:30)
Jesus OBEYS God. (John 8:29, 12:49)
Jesus WORSHIPS God. (John 4:22)
Jesus says his God is greater than him, and all. (John 14:28, 10:29)
Jesus says that our God is also his own God. (John 20:17, Rev 3:12)
Jesus distinguishes himself as someone OTHER THAN his God. (John 10:36, 17:3)
Jesus was sent BY God. (Gal 4:4)
Jesus sits at the right hand OF God. (Mark 16:19, Acts 2:33)
Jesus rules in the power, authority, and name OF God. (Micah 5:4, Matt 28:18)
Jesus will hand the reign of the Kingdom back to his own God. (1 Cor 15:24, 28)
Sorry Mike. Kathi will easily defeat this plank with a small speck that can be manipulated to her view.
T8,
Quote Take a tree laden with seeds. Do those seeds exists as a life unto its own. Or are they merely the potential to become a life of its own? They are part of the tree and begin their own existence when certain things take place that allow the potential to become actual. Biologically speaking seed are living organisms. The are the beginning stages of a multi-celled organism.
See what I am writing about here.
K
Quote Biologically speaking seed are living organisms. The are the beginning stages of a multi-celled organism. so they are not a tree ;but a chemical compound to be used in developing a tree ,the seed is it self a product of the tree ,but not the tree ,right
Quote (kerwin @ April 02 2013,08:00) Biologically speaking seed are living organisms. The are the beginning stages of a multi-celled organism. See what I am writing about here.
Do you remember when you were a sperm racing for that egg and the overwhelming feeling you got when you got there first?Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 29 2013,18:47) God the Father, sent God the Son. Two persons in unity, not melded together. No fail here, just rocky soil that heard this before but the wind blew it away.
Oh so you are unique in that God is not a substance as the Trinitarians teach.So God HIM is really THEY.
Got it. Makes perfect sense.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
